Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Matthew 16:18-19- “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
I do not believe the Pope is infallible.
This is the RCC's favorite passage of scripture bar none. But does it actually say what they think it says?
The single biggest problem I'm seeing: No mention of Rome. Not here or anywhere else where Peter seems to be exercising God-given supreme leadership over the Church and the other apostles. You can argue till doomsday about whether Peter ever had the same role that the Roman Catholic Pope claims today. There's lots of passages of scripture that can be used on either side of the argument. But none of the pro-Peter passages say anything about Rome. At best, one passage has Peter writing "from Babylon" which might be code for the city of Rome. It might mean he was in Mesopotamia. It might mean that he was at any city noted for it's worldliness. It might mean a lot of things.
The giant gaping hole in the whole theory: We do not have any first-hand account of Peter actually being in Rome. Folks like Paul who definitely were in Rome never mention him when they are writing from Rome -- and at a time that, according to the RCC timeline, Peter should have been there in Rome with him. Paul actually mentions lots of other folks, but never Peter. Not once. There are contemporary first-hand accounts by non-Christians corroborating Paul's arrival in Rome, but not Peter. The RCC teaches that Peter led at Rome for several decades, but nobody in Rome ever mentions seeing him or hearing him first-hand for that entire space of time. All accounts claiming that Peter was reigning as Bishop in Rome start showing up over 100 years after the fact.
So whatever Peter's role or authority was, there isn't enough historical evidence to say that Peter's authority passed to the bishop Rome or anyone else. From Linus to Pope Francis today, Pope = Bishop of Rome. Was Peter the Bishop of Rome? Probably not, but it's impossible to say for certain one way or the other. So it's impossible to say "Peter was the first Pope" if we don't know for sure whether he was the first Bishop of Rome.
But the Bible also says to test the spirits to ascertain which is from God and which is not.
from 1John 4..... Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world…………..6 We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit[a] of truth and the spirit of falsehood.
Outstanding post! And one which can be used to catch all the errors that crept into the growing "religiosity" that became the mainstream church.
Your point is weak because the term father is used in the NT.
It is clear Jesus was talking about sanctimonious people. You call it an attitude, whci is basically more or less the same thing. You are on the ropes, but i will back off.
Just one more point, can you show me where it was used as a title to indicate the superior position of the "Father"(other than God) in relation to the writer?
This is the RCC's favorite passage of scripture bar none. But does it actually say what they think it says?
The single biggest problem I'm seeing: No mention of Rome. Not here or anywhere else where Peter seems to be exercising God-given supreme leadership over the Church and the other apostles. You can argue till doomsday about whether Peter ever had the same role that the Roman Catholic Pope claims today. There's lots of passages of scripture that can be used on either side of the argument. But none of the pro-Peter passages say anything about Rome. At best, one passage has Peter writing "from Babylon" which might be code for the city of Rome. It might mean he was in Mesopotamia. It might mean that he was at any city noted for it's worldliness. It might mean a lot of things.
The giant gaping hole in the whole theory: We do not have any first-hand account of Peter actually being in Rome. Folks like Paul who definitely were in Rome never mention him when they are writing from Rome -- and at a time that, according to the RCC timeline, Peter should have been there in Rome with him. Paul actually mentions lots of other folks, but never Peter. Not once. There are contemporary first-hand accounts by non-Christians corroborating Paul's arrival in Rome, but not Peter. The RCC teaches that Peter led at Rome for several decades, but nobody in Rome ever mentions seeing him or hearing him first-hand for that entire space of time. All accounts claiming that Peter was reigning as Bishop in Rome start showing up over 100 years after the fact.
So whatever Peter's role or authority was, there isn't enough historical evidence to say that Peter's authority passed to the bishop Rome or anyone else. From Linus to Pope Francis today, Pope = Bishop of Rome. Was Peter the Bishop of Rome? Probably not, but it's impossible to say for certain one way or the other. So it's impossible to say "Peter was the first Pope" if we don't know for sure whether he was the first Bishop of Rome.
The election of Peter by Jesus was not dependent on Rome.
There is nothing magical about Rome.
Rome became the Holy See later. At the time Jesus selected Peter there was no Vatican City.
Protestants think they get mileage on the Rome argument because they erroneously believe the Popes must work out of Rome. They forget that the papacy was once in France.
Peter is the first Earthly leader of Christianity. That is quite obvious from the NT.
Just one more point, can you show me where it was used as a title to indicate the superior position of the "Father"(other than God) in relation to the writer?
This is ridiculous!
Let me post the whole passage. Please read the bold parts:
Quote:
Matthew 23:1-9
New International Version (NIV) A Warning Against Hypocrisy
23 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2 “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. 4 They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.
5 “Everything they do is done for people to see: They make their phylacteries[a] wide and the tassels on their garments long; 6 they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; 7 they love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and to be called ‘Rabbi’ by others.
8 “But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9 And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.
Can you accept that Jesus is talking about sanctimonious people.
Here you go: (father and teacher)
Genesis 45:8
New International Version (NIV)
8 “So then, it was not you who sent me here, but God. He made me father to Pharaoh, lord of his entire household and ruler of all Egypt.
Job 29:16
New International Version (NIV)
16 I was a father to the needy;
I took up the case of the stranger.
Isaiah 22:20-21
New International Version (NIV)
20 “In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. 21 I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the people of Judah.
Acts 7:2
New International Version (NIV)
2 To this he replied: “Brothers and fathers, listen to me! The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham while he was still in Mesopotamia, before he lived in Harran.
Romans 9:10
New International Version (NIV)
10 Not only that, but Rebekah’s children were conceived at the same time by our father Isaac.
Here Jesus commands disciples to be teachers:
Matthew 28:19-20
New International Version (NIV)
19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.
2 Timothy 1:11
New International Version (NIV)
11 And of this gospel I was appointed a herald and an apostle and a teacher.
1 Corinthians 12:28
New International Version (NIV)
28 And God has placed in the church first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, of helping, of guidance, and of different kinds of tongues.
Ephesians 4:11
New International Version (NIV)
11 So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers,
I feel bad about these arguments. It is simply too easy to debate all the erroneous dogma you have been fed by your Protestant minister.
BTW, many Protestant ministers with a Doctor degree are often called Doctor.
This is ridiculous!
Let me post the whole passage. Please read the bold parts:
Quote:
Matthew 23:1-9
New International Version (NIV) A Warning Against Hypocrisy
23 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2 “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. 4 They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.
5 “Everything they do is done for people to see: They make their phylacteries[a] wide and the tassels on their garments long; 6 they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; 7 they love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and to be called ‘Rabbi’ by others.
8 “But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9 And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.
Can you accept that Jesus is talking about sanctimonious people.
Actually it sounds like it is talking about the Roman Curia and all the attendant pontifical pomposities in Rome and Vatican City.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
